Wow, y'all move to fast for me. I think that Seely and Fischer
are participating in the renewal of a Christian natural theology.
Eric Voeglin's analysis of the modern disease was in terms of
civic theology, which was also eclipsed by the success of
Christianity. The view of the city or state in antiquity was that
the city or state was a re-enactment of the theological order.
Augustine defied that view with the City of God and City of Man
concept. When nations began to emerge as feudalism ended,
thinkers secularized Christian concepts in the construction
of a new civic theology. One consequence is the three ages paradigm,
for example, the terms like modern, middle, ancient ages or
enlightened, dark and ancient ages. With this secularization,
the objective and subjective poles of civic experience were
separated. The objective was hitched to the rising star of
science, hence the social sciences. The subjective became
either a reflection of the objective (utopiaism, communism) or
a rejection of the objective (anarchism) or the assertion of
the subjective as objective (Neitschean will to power, and, er,
YEC). For Voeglin, the therapeutic recovery from modernism
is to regain the subjective pole in tension with the objective
pole of our experience of civic theology. The subjective
pole is a return to the foundation, to philosophy and Christianity.

Now, if we substitute the word "natural" for "civic" in Voelgin's
analysis, I think we get a better picture of where we
(on this listserv) are going in the therapeutic recovery
from modernism.

If you made it this far:
So looking at the words "objective" and "subjective" in terms
of use, what do you associate the terms with?